Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a bamboo stick, causing his death, but altered his conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC. There was no motive or premeditation, no weapon was brought, and a sudden fight in the heat of passion could not be ruled out. He was sentenced to the period already undergone.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent finding that the appellant assaulted and caused the death of the deceased was sustainable on the eyewitness evidence.
- Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable or should be altered to a lesser offence.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The concurrent conviction for murder was set aside because the prosecution failed to prove motive or premeditation and the assault could have occurred in a sudden fight. (¶¶ 2, 13, 18, 19)
- Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I, and the appellant, who had served over 9 years of actual imprisonment (over 12 with remission), was sentenced to the period already undergone. (¶¶ 19, 21)
Held
- The evidence of Rajendra Bhosale (PW-5) and Sunita Bhosale (PW-6) supported the concurrent finding that it was the appellant who assaulted the deceased and caused his death. The presence of Mangesh Bhosale (PW-3) was doubtful, as his house was admittedly 2000-2500 feet from the spot. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- The eyewitness evidence showed only that, after the appellant was abused for intervening and walked away, the deceased followed him; what happened between them thereafter was not clear from the eyewitnesses. (¶ 15)
- No motive was established: the deceased had merely intervened when the appellant was abusing PW-5 and his wife over a loan. The appellant did not come armed, and the injuries were caused by a bamboo stick commonly available in a village. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Since premeditation was not proved, a sudden fight in the heat of passion after the deceased followed the appellant could not be ruled out, and the injuries did not show that the appellant took undue advantage or acted cruelly or unusually. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the conviction was altered from Section 302 to Part I of Section 304 IPC. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Part I of Section 304 IPC; appellant sentenced to the period already undergone; bail bonds discharged.